The Instigator
masterzanzibar
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
vongsa
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

The United States should implement universal health care modeled after the French System

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
masterzanzibar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,843 times Debate No: 5772
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

masterzanzibar

Pro

I Affirm that The United States should implement universal health care modeled after the French system, and substantiate this notion with the following three contentions.
BUT FIRST!
framework: in order for the con to win, he/she must prove that the status quo is more beneficiary to the United States than the proposed French system would be.

I. The French Health Care System is more quantitative than it's U.S. counterpart.

The current situation with U.S. health care is undoubtedly in need for some serious reform. according to the census bureau in 2008 the number for overall Americans without health insurance rose up 5 percent from 2005 to 47 million in 2008. Additionally, the problem is only getting, and expecting, to get worse with health insurance and care costs rising drastically. .According to http://www.nchc.org... from 2006 to 2007 Small employers saw their premiums, on average, increase 5.5 percent, and Firms with less than 24 workers, experienced an increase of 6.8 percent.
The Universal French system, on the opposite side of the spectrum, covers France in its entirety; in a cheaper and quite possibly more efficient manner. according to the Boston globe in 2007, the French system of health care costs 3,500 dollars per capita, while the U.S. system (the most expensive in the world) comes in at 6,100 per person. Additionally, out of a study done by noted specialists Steven Jonas and Anthony Kover in their book Health Care Delivery in the United States , they state that while only 40 percent of U.S. citizens were satisfied with their system of health care, over 66% of France's population stated they were satisfied, the highest number surveyed in the world.
45 million uninsured is a number that can no longer be ignored in regards to United States health care, and a step towards the French system would insure care to those Americans that need it, at a much lower cost for all. With the continuity of the status quo, we screw the 45 million people who need insurance, and perhaps deem ourselves to a future with much of the same results. A vote for the Con endorses ignorance of the blatant ever-increasing health care problem.

Contention 2- The French Excel in preventative care
perhaps the biggest reason why the united states should model after this system is its ability to ensure French citizens with preventative care. Preventative care is a highly beneficiary aspect of health care, for it prevents the escalation of future diseases

Contention 3- The French System will get rid of Administrative costs.
Currently in the united states, administrative costs amount to approximately thirty percent of National Health Expenditures. to model after this system would mitigate and in most ways elminate administrative costs, ultimatley making health care more affordable in the United States.

god bless america.
vongsa

Con

ok to start this i just want to show you that con should win this debate because of the numerous resons i will be presenting you.

My first contention is that the United States would have a hard time paying for this universal health care. When you use your health insurance the coverage improves. So that means that with this improved coverage that means that there would be an increase in taxes. Also we already have taxes which are taken out of your total income which is around 20-40%. And the required fee for health insurance is 21% of your total income. So if we implemented this universal health care then that 21% would be added to the other taxes which are deducted from your total income. This means that it would give us less money to buy consumer goods and with us buying less consumer goods leads to our economy falling because our economy is stimulated by buying consumer goods. So as I have shown you in my first contention are that due to there health care system taxes will not cease to increase which would put us further in debt. Also the universal health care pays for your tuition for medical school so I believe that this will contribute a major factor to our debt.
www.opposingviewpoint.org

My second contention is that it will have some negative effects to our nation if we implement universal health care modeling after the French. These negative affects are that we would have to pay 21% of our total income to pay for this universal health care. Also due to that it would give us less money to buy consumer goods which would weaken the economy. Also due to high taxes employers have stated that they could not hire more people because of high taxes. So this means that with the increase of taxes logically there would be less jobs or people would be losing there job which would hurt the economy. The French are such in a debt to be exact it is 9 billion dollars in debt to health care. So due to this high debt the French government had to increase the prices of medical prices and ambulances. What I'm trying to say that if we implement this universal health care then we would also is increasing the prices of our medical products and cost of riding the ambulance. Another negative effect it would have on us is that we would have to pay out of our pocket because the French health care system only pays for 30% of the bill. And that 90% of French citizens have private health care which means that if we implement this plan then we would also have to buy private health insurance because universal health does not give you total coverage. And that also would contribute to our enormous debt.
www.medicae.com/health.org

My third contention is that universal health care would not work in our economy due to the impact it would have on our doctors. In France they have 475 patents per physicians where as in the United States we have 1000 patients per physician. This means that we have double the patents for every doctor. Also that in France the have been studies that show that doctors work over hours due to the number of patients. Also French doctors only get paid 1/3 of what American doctors get so if we implement this plan then we would be giving our doctors the same budget as French doctors. Also Emergency services at public and university hospitals in France last week began a "general and unlimited" strike, organized by the French Association of Hospital Emergency Doctors. Joined by nurses, administrators, and ambulance drivers, the striking doctors are asking not only for more staff, better working conditions, more beds, and more money but a revamp of France's entire emergency and out-of-hours care system. So since we have more patients and fewer doctors it would give doctors more stress and longer working hours which could also lead to doctors and other workers going into strike. At the peak of the strike in the middle of the week, participation was about 90% of staff in public hospitals and 80% in university hospitals, according to the government and strikers. One of the causes of the present strike is a big rise in the number of patients visiting emergency departments.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

http://www.bmj.com...
Debate Round No. 1
masterzanzibar

Pro

masterzanzibar forfeited this round.
vongsa

Con

ok as my opponent has stated his contentions and also many reasons why you should pas this bill I will be rebutaling his side of the flow them moving on to my case

as my opponent has already stated that if we take in this universal health care modeled after the French system it would help us due to the difference in cost well that might be true but to explain some more of what the French plans are that if we were to implement this plan it would give students free tuition for medical school, and for this to happen someone is going to pay for it which is the government. so by doing this it would increase our taxes or it will just put our economy into further debt. also the amount of taxes we pay for health insurance as I have stated earlier is around 21% that is a required payment for health insurance in France. so we already have to take out 20-40% of our total income just for regular taxes and if we to implement this plan then it would take another 21% out of our income which would give us less money to buy consumer goods. and we all know that buying consumer goods stimulate are economy so by buying less consumer goods would hurt are economy. also due to high taxes employers have stated that they could not hire more workers or they that to lay off employees due to taxes. for these reasons I believe that the cost for universal health care would be worse then ours. but I do not disagree with my opponent about the cost is half of what we pay but in reality we would be paying more in taxes if we were to implement this plan.

and for his second contention is that The French Excel in preventative care. well he said Preventative care is a highly beneficiary aspect of health care, for it prevents the escalation of future diseases. ok but he did not explain how this would help the escalation of future diseases. and that he had no sources for this so how would we know if what he has just presented us is reliable or not.

also if the French system was so good then why do 90% of France have private health insurance. the reason is that they have private health insurance is because universal health care does not fully pay the total coverage. and due to that the citizens of the united states might also need private health insurance just so they don't have to pay out of there pocket. but this would also cost citizens money just to get private health insurance.

for all these reasons I have presented you I erge you a con ballot on this debate
Debate Round No. 2
masterzanzibar

Pro

masterzanzibar forfeited this round.
vongsa

Con

my opponent has obviously forfeited the previous two matches and has not yet rebutaled my contentions so by this, you should vote con on this debate
Debate Round No. 3
masterzanzibar

Pro

masterzanzibar forfeited this round.
vongsa

Con

vongsa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by masterzanzibar 8 years ago
masterzanzibar
i do public forum, i was at speech arts. skyline UT. broke to quarters but judge voted us down in qts. because they thought ambulatory care was most crucial aspect in the round.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Poorly argued. Neither side made a convincing case. Assertions of fact were not argued. Neither considered how the health care requirements of the U.S. differ from France. Con wins by forfeiture, of course.
Posted by vongsa 8 years ago
vongsa
it's alright but what tournament were u at and are you pf or LD because we have a tournament ever weekend but there really early
Posted by masterzanzibar 8 years ago
masterzanzibar
sorry i was at a real tournament and did not have time to response. my apologies for wasting your time vongsa
Posted by vongsa 8 years ago
vongsa
my Apologize i had already sent in my argument without knowing that you had sent in your argument as a comment but other then this we can just continue are debate
Posted by masterzanzibar 8 years ago
masterzanzibar
I apologize vongsa, I got caught by my own time limit. i will respond here in the comments section in hopes that you and those judging will consider this as a legitimate rebuttal; if not it is understandable.
First To Attack the Con
"My first contention is that the United States would have a hard time paying for this universal health care. When you use your health insurance the coverage improves. So that means that with this improved coverage that means that there would be an increase in taxes. "
My response: sure there might be an increase in taxes, but if you look at health expendetures in the united states vs. France, France spends about 10 percent of their GDP on health care, while the United States pays around 16 percent of their GDP on health care. thus, we can see reguardless if taxes are raised, Health care in france is extremly more economically attractive than the U.S. system.

To their second contention look at the same GDP evidence that i provided in the first attack from the boston globe.com stating that U.S. spends 6 percent more of GDP than france so realistically we're spending billions less and can use the extra cash for things like scoring foriegn babes or i dont know paying off the deficit perhaps. they also state in this contention that we would pay more out of pocket in the french system, when realistically 45 million people are uninsured in the united states paying out of pocket, whereas everyone in france has insurance. he asserts they have 30% coverage, wrong, more like 75% coverage from healthcare economist in 08, plus the more sick they are the less they pay.
in the third point he clearly uses some contradicting evidence when he states france has 475 patents per physicians whereas the u.S. has 1,000 per physican, while after he says they work more hours. less patients, more hours? what? no warrant at all, plus less paitents is a good thing for physicians can reserve more time per patient. more for paying less. extnd my args.
Posted by vongsa 8 years ago
vongsa
i will accept your debate because i have made some adjustments to my own case and would like to see how it does but also i would also like to say that i am willing to debate both side of this resolution
Posted by funnybrad333 8 years ago
funnybrad333
I will accept this debate if you are okay with me arguing that universal health care in any form is unjust.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
The debate is framed incorrectly because the opening demands that Con defends the status quo. I am of the opinion that we should not adopt the french system but am unable to defend the status quo. The united states has single payer health care through medicare, gradually expanding coverage (lets say everybody under 20) and scrapes and the like throughout the age spectrum would seem a perfectly acceptable way to ramp up care.

The french system or the status quo is a false dichotomy. The topic's rigged.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
I would like to accept the challenge, but cannot because of the 24 hour response limit imposed. (I am traveling.)

Key points in the debate are that the U.S. has substantially different health needs than France because car accidents, drug use, suicides, gang violence, and poor habits of diet and exercise lead to many more early deaths. If a person makes it to 55, life expectancy in the U.S. is among the best in the world. Health in Costa Rica is nearly as good as in the U.S. despite having virtually no health care system to speak of ($300/yr) simply because their lifestyle is so much better. The factors that lower life expectancy in the U.S. have also led to an extremely expensive emergency care system that the French and other countries do not need. Note the recent story about a woman in Japan who had to call 19 hospitals to find one with an emergency care facility.

The uninsured in the U.S. include about 15 million non-citizens who are eligible for care in their home countries and perhaps 10 million who qualify for Medicaid but don't apply until they have a health problem. There are also people, mainly young people owning a business, who can afford insurance but elect not to get it. Lack of health insurance should not be equated with lack of health care.

The main reason that government administrative costs are low is that they do not examine claims. Cases of gross fraud are the job of the Justice Department, so those expenses are not counted as health care costs. Of course, increasing demand and eliminating competition increases costs. To decrease costs, one must increase supply, not demand. Government health insurance only increases demand.

I hope whoever accepts the challenge will press all these points.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by masterzanzibar 8 years ago
masterzanzibar
masterzanzibarvongsaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by kelseybear16 8 years ago
kelseybear16
masterzanzibarvongsaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by djexcelsior 8 years ago
djexcelsior
masterzanzibarvongsaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
masterzanzibarvongsaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01